Greenawalt

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona’s Employment Protection Act (“EPA”), Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 23-1501, does not bar Greenawalt’s action. According to Arizona law, statutes are presumed not to apply retroactively unless they contain an express statement of retroactive intent. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 1-244. This rule only applies to substantive enactments, however; statutorily enacted procedural requirements may be given retroactive application, because litigants have no vested rights in the application of particular procedures. Aranda v. Indus. Comm’n, 198 Ariz. 467 , 11 P.3d 1006, 1009 (2000) (en banc). “Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights while a procedural law establishes only the method of enforcing such rights or obtaining redress.” Id. (quoting Hall v. A.N.R. Freight Sys., Inc., 149 Ariz. 130 , 717 P.2d 434, 442 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this rubric, the EPA clearly implicates substantive rights. The statute does not merely explain how an employee may go about bringing a claim for breach of contract; it defines substantively when a terminated employee may bring such a claim.

Defining the EPA as a substantive statute does not end the inquiry, however,…